Jump to content

Talk:Greek junta/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Misc

One thing I need help with, concerns the part the greek royal family played in the junta. Related links: Constantine II of Greece, Paul of Greece, Frederika of Hanover.

A couple of notes on my latest edit (effectively reverting some of the edits by Guy Montag. 1. Technically, there was no military government, there was a civilian government backed by the military. Splitting hairs, I know, but the words government and regime cannot be used interchangably. 2. About 'self-contradicting': How can an anarchist also be a communist? 3. The word "supposed": There really was no joint conspiracy by communists, centrists, bureaucrats, intellectuals, atheists, abstract artists, Mikis Theodorakis, Allen Ginsberg, John Lennon and Bob Dylan (also banned) to overthrow the state and destroy Greece; I don't think so (not Bob, at least). Sysin 07:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism is a form of communism and anarchic means chaotic or chaos inducing. So, the term possibly refers to communists who want to cause chaos in society. Regime is a pejorative term for government, anf since it was Papodapolous (sp) and Dmitrious who defacto controlled the government, we should call it what it was, a puppet government controlled by the military, hence, military government or military junta if you like. Finally, it is pov to state that there was no plot by communists to overthrow the government. Tito backed communist groups in Greece to specifically do that.

Guy Montag 18:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism is the rejection of all leadership, which contradicts (soviet-style) communism. Anyway looking at anarchism, I see that the term anarcho-communist as a distinct ideology does exist, so i'll grant that, and remove the word "self-contradicting". But, I doubt that the pro-soviet KKE was 'anarchist'.

Re: regime and government: The is, semantically, a difference between a military government (kivernisis) and a puppet civilian government. Regime (kathestos) is a term that encompasses both the government (prime ministers, ministers, bureaucrats), and the military puppet-masters behind them. When Greeks refer to the junta it is always as kathestos (unless they are more specifically refering to Kollias' kyvernisis).

As for Tito, this is the first time I see it stated that he was trying to overthrow the Greek gov't in 1967 - interesting theory but there is no evidence. But it is a fact that the Junta was actively creating fictional enemies to justify its policies; there were, for example, a number of cases of sabotage by junta operatives on military bases that were designed to act as excuses for the purge of pro-democracy officers (and, even, pro-monarchy officers); such cases were well documented and proven in court after 1974. Not that there were no communists in Greece in the 60s - but it is a fact that the junta went out of its way to create more, fictional enemies whenever it was convenient. Sysin

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between us because of language. Here is what anarchic means according to dictionary.com. I understand that from Greek regime might mean something neutral or different, but in English, the term regime is many times used by people as a negative term. Hence, I believe we should find an NPOV term for the military rule.

Elections were scheduled for May 1967, but before they could take place there was a military coup, and a junta headed by Col George Papadopoulos, Col Nicholas Makarezos, and Brig Stylianos Pattakos seized power in April 1967. The official pretext for the coup was the need to forestall an armed communist uprising. Mass arrests, mainly of left-wingers, followed. All political parties were abolished, while large-scale purges were instituted in the armed forces.

Although power in the new regime clearly lay with the military, the nominal prime minister was a civilian, Konstantine Kollias. King Constantine’s attitude towards the new regime was reserved, and in December 1967 he launched a counter-coup against ‘the Colonels’, as the regime had come to be known. The counter-coup was unsuccessful, and Constantine fled into exile in Italy. This was the signal for direct military rule. Gen Zoitakis became regent, while Col Papadopoulos, who had emerged as the strong man of the regime, assumed the premiership. Further purges of royalist officers who had supported the king’s coup ensued. In September 1968 a new and authoritarian constitution was approved by a large majority in a referendum; but, as martial law was still in force, this could not be regarded as a true test of opinion. Even after the enactment of the new constitution many of its provisions remained in abeyance.

Please use this as a reference. [1]

I am sure that the Greek military rulers relied on propaganda against communists, but this needs to be cited, and the claim that there was no danger from communist agitation for revolution (which was common in Africa, South America and Asia at the time) cited.

Guy Montag 03:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Even before your post, I had modified the text around "self-contrtadicting" and "supposed", so it doesn't matter. I put incorrectly because very few Greek leftists were actually anarcho-communists as defined in wikipedia.

No-one claimed that there were no communists in Greece who would like to overthrow the government, but the junta's "enemy" was a far bigger one: A vast conspiracy (including authors, poets, pop artists, centrist politicians, academics, Jews, and all the other usual suspects) that sought not just to make the country communist, but to eradicate Greek culture altogether. I'll let you be the judge of how real this "enemy" was.

As for the term "regime" being pejorative in the english language, it is not clear that it is, see regime and talk:regime. In any case "Regime of the Colonels" is the standard way to refer to this period, and the word is also used by your source. Sysin 07:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. I will accept the term regime since it is an official term. I still think you have mistranslated the meaning of anarchic, but since you fixed it, it is irrelevent. But for personal reasons, I suggest you understand that the word has dual meaning in the English language. I understand what you mean by the huge "conspiracy", but I suggest using npov language to describe it.

Guy Montag 18:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


The word supposed (which I think is what you felt was NPOV) has already been removed Sysin

Great that we could work together.

Regards,

Guy Montag 22:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti Junta

I have started a section on the anti-junta movement. Maybe a whole seperate article would be better! Michalis Famelis 22:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the title "international criticism" to "international outcry", because it is the title of a subsection of a section named "Anti-Junta movement". Therefore, imho, it should be not about merely "criticism", but about one of the accomplished results of the Anti-Junta Movement to create such an international outcry and discrediting of the regime. Criticism, has already been mentioned (eg Amnesty International on torture). It is outcry, I think this subsection should be about. Michalis Famelis 01:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea, but I think it violates pov policies. I'll see if I can find a word with a similiar connotation. Guy Montag 01:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, according to Wiktionary, "outcry" is just a "strong" protest, and you've used "protest" instead. :) Anyway, we are just playing with words here, so how about "international support for the movement"? And also we are just contending about a title of a subsection that has not been written yet, so let's not skin the bear before we kill it! :) Michalis Famelis 11:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am very lenient on these things. As long as it sounds good and inoffensive, its a deal :).

Guy Montag 16:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Reference Added

Hello, All - I added the book "A Short History of Modern Greece" to the Reference section; it's a work in English that I have found helpful; gives some good detailed information, and would serve as a reference to some of the topics covered in this article. However, if you object to the reference for some reason, I won't be offended if you remove it, as it was not necessarily a reference that contributors used in preparing the article. Cheers, LiniShu 04:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Title

Surely the word "Colonels" should be in the title somewhere. This is how the regime is known. john k 20:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Phoenix

The coin depicted here with the emblem of the phoenix does not come from the junta period since that phoenix has a soldier bearing arms in front of it and an inscription with the date of the junta (April 21st). I'll try to come up with a picture of that.alx_bio 13:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who uploaded the image. It comes from here. Apparently it was minted in 1973 and I would guess that the absence of the "soldier bearing arms in front of it and an inscription with the date of the junta (April 21st)" must have something to do with Papadopoulos "liberisation" of the regime. If you believe that the featured coin should be one of an earlier stage of the junta, that is with the soldier and the 21/4 date, I think that you could use pictures from here. Michalis Famelis 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In summer 1967 an advertising agency owned by a junta sympathizer created an "emblem" for the "revolution" (as the junta called itself). This emblem consisted of the phoenix with a soldier with a rifle standing guard before it. The junta liked the emblem and it was officially adopted and widely used in all sorts of places, including a special stamp issue and coins minted in December 1971. However, since Greece was officially a monarchy from 1967 to June 1973 the royal arms remained the state arms and appeared on all official documents etc. When the junta proclaimed a republic in June 1973 it made the Phoenix (but without soldier) into the state arms, replacing the royal arms. The coin shown dates from this (later) period, the wording around it reads "Hellenic Republic". Since the phoenix was associated with the junta as soon as the latter fell, in July 1974, the phoenix stopped being used and until June 1975 Greece had no arms. A wholly different emblem, reminiscent of the royal arms but without crown, was adopted in June 1975.

Actually, the phoexix was the emblem of teh Greek state under the rule of Kapodistrias. One of the first coins of the modern Greek state was called the "phoenix". The emblem was borrowed from a masonic symbol. Rastapopoulos 06:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

LOK

...creation of a secret army from as early as 1944, known as the Greek Mountain Brigade, ... or Lochos Oreinon Katadromon (LOK)

This is factually incorrect. The Lochoi Oreinon Katadromon were actually light infantry companies created during the latter phases of the Greek Civil war. They were elite units, specialising in mountain warfare and were considered to be 'politically reliable', but they were certainly not secret in any sense of the word.

This page needs a major overhaul

It is very poorly both and style and content. Let's try to impove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastapopoulos (talk • contribs)

Could you start by pointing out what parts you think could be improved? --Michalis Famelis 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The entire Gladio and LOK passage should be removed. It is in no historical works concerning the junta. It should be replaced by a passage about the link between EENA and KYP and thus ostensibly the CIA.
Papandreou was not sacked, he gave in his resignation, though he had probably not expected it to be acepted. Papandreou wanted to take over the post of defence minister himself, realising that he had little to no control over the rightwhing minister he had appointed himself to soothe rightleaning elements of his fragmented centerunion as well as the military. The aspida affair concerning Andreou was also a part of this, I belive.
It says that Spantidakis was arrested, surely this is wrong?
The king and the generals (and IDEAs) plans for a coup is not mentioned at all. That is very strange. The colonels were also rebelling against the generals, this is an important factor.
The Metaxas period should in my oppinion be worked into the background, though this is a minor edit when compared to the rest. At this point the article is in shambles. Ptalatas 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


How About A Little Reality in This Article

We have stated all the negative aspects and quite rightly too. It was to many a very dark period. However compared to previous juntas around the world it was the least bloody in History. What other Junta can take over a country in 6 hours without 1 death or shot fired? Where is the reality that it was not totally unpopular before its demise, especially when they took over many believed the country needed organisation for once? And finally where is the harsh reality that Greece's economy grew quicker under the Junta than at any other period before or after due to the slashing of beaurocracy? New roads were built, an infostructure of electricty to islands who never had it and the foundation tourism which Greece still lives off. Many things in Life are good and bad, rarely soley evil, this Junta is painted in a soley negative light, don't you think it is time for a little reality and ligo logiki. Reaper7 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"highlighting the extraordinary reality"

Reaper, could you please provide some sources to support your claim that the Greek economy never before, and never after the junta saw such "extraordinary growth"? I believe there have been periods in modern greek history that accounted for much larger economic growth than 1967-1974. From memory I can recount the years of Trikoupis, the 1924-1929 period, the period Greece was on the Marshall Plan money, the late 90ies etc. Is the 67-74 period comparable to these? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


incredible economy of Junta

Despite these limitations on freedom most Greeks were not particularly affected in a negative way. In fact, most Greeks profited from a quickly growing economy under the Colonel's military rule. By eliminating the parliament and most other cumbersome bureaucratic institutions the dictators were able to make decisions quickly and efficiently which helped streamline the functioning of the economy. This lead to economic growth and prosperity in Greece which has never been seen before or after.
http://www.greecetravel.com/mazarakis/wisdom/junta.html
The end of the period of growth became obvious after the reestablishment of democracy in Greece in 1974. For both internal and external reasons, the democratic governments that followed the junta were unable to restore growth. Thus, for example, the average annual growth rates of the GDP, which had been 7.6 percent in 1961- 70, dropped to 4.7 percent in 1971-80 and then to 1.4 percent in 1981-90. Clearly the "Greek economic miracle" had come to an end.
http://www.photius.com/countries/greece/economy/greece_economy_economic_policy_afte~172.html
Greece achieved high rates of growth in the late 1960s and early 1970s,which also saw some major foreign investments in Greece. Since the 1970s, however, Greece has suffered a decline in its rate of GDP growth of output, ratio of investment to GDP,and productivity of investment.
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bgnotes/eur/greece9012.html

There are many more references, because of the subsequent left wing politics in Greece since the Junta it has become unfashionable to talk about the economic miracle of this time, however, not everyone has to be fed this political slur and surely whatever certain Greeks may think politically, this boom in economy can not be edited on this page any longer and should be described properly Reaper7 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Reaper, I am not disputing at all that there existed economic growth during the 7 years. I am also not disputing that there was an economic downturn during the late 70ies until the late 80ies. What I am disputing is that the economic growth during the 7 junta years was something "extraordinary" or "incredible". Actually if you take a closer look at the sources you cited you will note that:
  • The first one (Mazarakis) is a completely irrelevant one. It does not come from an economic study, a historical review or a respected institution (of any sort) but rather from a ...carpet salesman! Reaper, our sources should not only be cited, but should also be reliable!
  • The second seems more credible, but one cannot but notice the endnote: No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Greece Economic Policy after 1974 information contained here.
  • But even if we agree to completely disregard that disclaimer, you should also read the following excerpt from the second source you provided: The democratic governments of the 1970s and 1980s faced the accumulated internal problems of economic institutions and the social modernization that had been either neglected or suppressed by the junta. On the agenda of social modernization were labor legislation, social insurance, education reform, and the provision of health care--elements without which the growth of a modern economy would be impossible. (bolding is mine). From this part one could infer that, economically, the junta did quite awfully...
  • The quote from the third source seems a little bit out of context. What the text says is: Recovery began in 1953 with a drastic currency devaluation and reduction in government spending which brought greater price stability and increased exports. From 1955 to 1963, under Prime Minister Karamanlis, Greece's gross domestic product (GDP) almost doubled. Greece achieved high rates of growth in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which also saw some major foreign investments in Greece. ...figures follow and then the text goes on to describe why the Greek economy went downhill from the late 70ies an on. And the reasons, apart from PASOK's policies are also very global ones: the 1979 oil crisis and the opening of the economy to the European Economical Community. You can also see that the reasons behind the economic growth during the 60ies was not the junta's decrees but the elected PM's, Karamanlis, policies and reforms.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that, of course there was indeed economic growth in the 7 junta years. But was not in any sense "incredible" or "extraordinary". And of course the economic downurn after the junta was not due to the absence of the military's tight grip on society, or any kind of (to quote Mr Mazarakis) "cumbersome bureaucratic institutions" like the ...Parliament!
From what I gather from the sources you provided is that:
  • The economic reforms of Karamanlis in the late 50ies did create a momentum which created a great economic growth even after democracy was deposed.
  • It was these reforms that, coupled with some of the junta's policies sustained the economic growth during the junta.
  • However, this economic growth was fated to die out because the junta neglected or suppressed any process of social modernization, necessary for sustaining economic growth in the long run.
  • The economy did start to go downhill after the junta. But that doesn't mean that it did so because the junta was over. Metapolitefsi governments had to cope with a much harsher international economic environment ('79 oil crisis). They also had to deal with the accumulated problems left over to them by the junta regarding social modernization, that is to build expensive stuff like social insurance, health care etc that the junta had not bothered to cope with.
I am not an economist, or a social scientist, but from what you gave me to read, that is what I understood. What do you think?
--Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


You make good points, and i agree to an extent. I have said a statement, and only one of my sourses clearly says the growth is unrivaled where as the others point to it up to the early 90s. I am yet to find a source where it simply says there was growth during the Junta but not as much as other times in the century in Greece. However i do believe that this strong growth was a result of the Junta making life very simple for ship owners, developers, entrepreneurs such as Mr A. O with Olympic and many many others. There is no doubt the parlimentry system takes away incentives to wealth with red tape and creates more barriers to making money. Most people are aware that beaucracy has this effect. Look at Athens now with Garbage - this simply would not have happened under the Junta. What I am saying is if you can show me figures of a time last century where GROWTH was faster in Greece I will happily concede, otherwise, it is more than obvious that the economic growth in this period was highly relevant. Also ofcourse the next GOVTs would blame down turn in Economic Growth on the JUNTA, just about everything wrong with Greece was blamed on the Junta, but few in the socialist media commented on the fact that they would drive on roads built by the JUNTA where only dirt sand tracks existed previously, and visit Islands where before the Junta there was no electricity, roads and even ferry links or even the fact that Greece's no.1 industry to this day is tourism, an industry completely nurtured by the Junta as most of the hotels, roads, Ferry links and foreign investors came under the Junta when the fear of a socialist country was finally dead. Please also be aware that unfortunately most the literature on the web concerning this issue whether good or bad for anyones arguements are written with a socialist slur as very few even touch upon the positives to come out of their rule, a rule that begun when Greece was in a state ready to enter total chaos. This questioning of yours is a prime example, it is obvious there was strong economic growth here, something extraordinary and that is the way the article should read until you can find figures that there were times of GREATER ECONOMIC GROWTH in a similar continuous time period in Greece last century. Reaper7 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not fully understand what you wrote. Please use paragraphs the next time!! I will try to respond to what I think you wrote. If I misunderstood, please correct me.
I will not contend with you over the economic virtues of parliamentarianism or democracy in general. You have your point of view with which I think is awfully flawed but that is completely irrelevant. We are not here to debate, but to discuss how to improve the article.
I understand that you ask of me to provide a source that shows that the 7 year rule of the military was not the best economic period in the century. But, dear Reaper, it is not me who tried to add this claim to the article. It is you who is trying to say that the 7 years were unparalleled. It is your claim, therefore it is your responsibility to prove it, not mine to refute it. Think about it: if a mathematician comes forward and declares to the scientific community that he has come up with a theorem, it is his job to provide a proof for it, not the community's job to refute it.
Concerning the existence of few references to the era on the web, it is only natural that it should be so. You should turn to a library for more research. However, I will point you to a neutral source which can give you a brief, yet comprehensive, non-partisan insight in the economic environment of the period. I assume from your syntax that you are a greek language speaker, so you are capable of reading the book: "Ανάμεσα σε Κράτος και Αγορά: Οικονομία και οικονομική πολιτική στη μεταπολεμική Ελλάδα 1944-2000" (translation: "Between the State and the Market: Economy and economic policy in postwar Greece 1944-2000") by Panos Kazakos (Πάνος Καζάκος), Patakis editions ISBN 9601600272. Post-WW2 Greek history courses at the University of Athens, use this very book, so I trust it is authoritative enough. You will be especially interested to read chapter 3 which deals with the 7 year military rule. Personally, I intend to study the book more and hopefully add to the article what I find out, with proper references to the book.
I would appreciate it if you could adopt a less polemical attitude in the matter. There exists no such thing as a "socialist" conspiracy to discredit the "miracle" of the junta. And I do not quite understand what you ment by "This questioning of yours is a prime example". I assume that you refer to the quote I mentioned that talked about "social modernization". Please note that it came from the very sources you provided, namely the second one.
Anyhow, I think that is all. If I misunderstood what you wrote please correct me and please try to be more clear next time. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This proves the Growth in the Junta years has not been matched since its fall, it is very clear and totally a-political, just pure figures for you. http://www.aueb.gr/imop/papers/enteka.pdf So unless you have any problem with the figures or simply don't understand them, I will insert that this economic growth in the Junta years has not been matched since. Now I will search for a similar a-political figure-based source on the 60 years before the Junta. Reaper7 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to read the paper you linked to (I promise I will: it does look really interesting), but I would like to make a suggestion. Don't insert just one phrase that says that "economic growth in the Junta years has not been matched since". It sounds a bit vague and absurd, not to say POVish. Do something better, something that will really improve the article: Present the very figures from the paper that present the fluxuation of GDP growth. Cite the paper as a source for the figures, and include what the writers of the paper believe that caused the growth, and the consequent downturn. Write an encyclopedia article, not a polemic. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I given up its ok, I tried - even the title has been blunted to simply policies, .... the section has already been rewritten several times already with the inclusion of frauds and negative growth even when the junta was still in power, it is true what they famously say, many socialists just don't want to see a period of success amoungst all the political problems and even I am surprized to the extent to which this is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_economic_miracle At least i tried to talk about the Economic miracle of the period and that makes me proud and I will end by saying someone who says 'economic growth has not been matched since is vague and absurd statement' I find that person totally insane and perhaps from another planet, it is a phrase used everyday on political and news programmes in England and after all this is an English speaking article. Just unbelievable excuses and fabrications to hide the reality of figures. The best was the defence of the Govt after, even now Greek Govts show why the junta succeeded: http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_3362951_01/07/2006_71564Reaper7 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Did I offend you in any way? I'm sorry if you percieved so, but really I had no intention or reason to do such a thing. And not meaning to offend you, I am sad to read your rude remarks against me. As for the phrase that caused you all that anger, please re-read what I wrote. I suggested that instead of just plainly and flatly stating "economic growth in the Junta years has not been matched since", you should present the facts and figures. Is that insane or "extraterrestrial"? And how can my asking to have in the article the facts and figures instead of a polemical phrase like "not matched ever since" in any way be "unbelievable excuses and fabrications"?? And if you have heard the phrase in a TV program in England, please go ahead, cite the program and add the phrase in the article.
Oh, and by the way, trust me, there exists no socialist cabal... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The coups that never were... planned?

I made some factual corrections to the entry on George Rallis's account, as the previous entry misrepresented his words.

As for Karamanlis, if we want to reproduce every accusation made against him, no matter how unsubstantiated, may I suggest we include Stazi's fabricated conversations[2] as well? :-) AvianFluke 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Junta and freedom of culture

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that junta didn't suppress some forms of culture. There was a list of prohibited songs -including Theodorakis' songs- and not all records could be sold or bought. Generally, the article is ridiculous. I would like to ask the administrators to intervene, lock it to prevent edits from random fascists and present the historical FACTS.

The culture section as it stood before portrayed Greece like a third world country with no Western music available and people listening to folk songs and looking at folk art. Everyone knows better than that. I tried to convey as complete a picture as possible. You saw the article in a developing stage and you commented prematurely. Papadopoulos was portrayed as a simpleton with almost no education. I think that the Greek Military Academy deserves better than that. You don't have to be a junta apologist to be fair. Finally, eponymous editors are not random, IP addresses are. Finally I am not going to defend my record. It speaks for itself. Dr.K. 02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

About the lexicon

I don't quite see its purpose people. Sure it is informative but it could well be made into prose and incorporated into the other subsections of the characteristics section. As it stands it is very ugly, propping up in the middle of the prose and interrupting the flow of the text. Also, I don't really like the greeklish scent of it. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michalis, maybe we can make another article out of it if you don't like it here. Or locate it at the end as an appendix. I think these terms belong together because they give a complete picture of the political dictionary of the junta. Finally another term for Greeklish is transliteration. Dr.K. 02:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I agree it is ungainly. It is like throwing a book in the middle of a novel. But that doesn't mean we must dissolve the book. Relocation is a practical alternative I think. Dr.K. 02:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PPS If anyone can help with better phonetic attribution symbols so that we can improve the transcription please do so. I'm not a great expert in the phonetics rendering department. Dr.K. 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PPPS Michalis may have a point. This Greeklish linguistic virus could now mutate to include simple transcriptions. Does that mean that from now on when transliterating we must use the full dictionary grade, phonetically correct symbols? Or am I being too cautious? Dr.K. 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The lexicon is quite informative, but I don't think it belongs here. Might I suggest that you (Dr.K) create Glossary of the Greek military junta, which would be in line with Glossary of the Third Reich?--Damac 06:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Talking about constructive suggestions. Awesome idea! Many thanks; you took me out of a tough spot. This puppy, (lexicon), though informative, is not exactly the most aesthetically pleasing thing to have happened to the present article. Dr.K. 12:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And good form. Thank you for your suggestion that I do the honours. I appreciate your gesture, (but you, really, deserve the credit for the creation of the article). Dr.K. 12:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I had to leave it to you, seeing that you compiled the list.--Damac 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In the best of academic traditions. Dr.K. 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was operation Gladio made less prominent?

I specifically mean this edit. Im definetly no expert upon the matter (up until a few hours ago I did not realize that ther was a military coup in Greece following WW2). But operation Gladio was of great interest to me (stumbled upon it elsewhere though). The way the article is made now though, I don't think I would follow the link and check it out. Regards Sean Heron 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sean. I am the editor who had added the Gladio piece at the first place. But I agree with Cplakidas' edit. It is true that the previous form, rather over-emphasized Gladio's role in this specific coup. Of course Gladio is an interesting (and didactic) story, but it must not be given more gravity than it really had in the events. The way the article was written before it looked as if all the political turmoil in Greece prior to the junta was mainly due to Gladio, which is not true. Gladio was one of the reasons, and probably not the gravest. Imho, Cplakidas' edit is in the direction of a broader insight to western influence in Greece as it avoids to focus excessively on Gladio which was only one of the means the west manipulated things in Greece.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand, most the Greeks on Wiki are socialists and this page is their hatred baby. Forget the unrivalled economic growth that happened in the period, or any of the positives, unless you have a marxist userbox, you ain't editting this page. Reaper7 14:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Michalis Famelis. On hearing your words I am now very content with the way it is :) . I'm not sure if Reaper7 deserves a reply on the other hand ... Regards Sean Heron 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary i think that the role of the CIA was underestimated on this topic. And BTW I'm not marxist. Off course that all the so-called anti-communist coups of that period had active U.S support. Daprezz 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

othoneos

The name "Alexandros Othoneos" , the judge who tried the dictators is not even mentioned. I think the trial should belong to this page.

user:panosfidis

not sure if comment is appropriate here but I think the article is uncomplete....it does not talk about the fall or deconstruction of the junta, it needs a section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Junta.jpg

Image:Junta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Junta2.jpg

Image:Junta2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Many sections in dire need of citations

I noticed that this article has many sections that need citations. The way it stands now is definitely substandard. For example the "21 April coup" section has no citations at all. This is no way to write an article. I would appreciate any offers of help or at least some ideas. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

American/CIA influence

The page says that there is no proof of American support for the dictatorship. But Bill Clinton actually apologized to Greece for the role the US played in supporting the dictatorship. So... We need a good source for that.

And no, I'm not anti-American in any way. This is about history, not nationalism.

As for the inevitable comments by Greek fascists - let's try to ignore them. It's mainly the Greek version of "Hitler built roads, you know" that is so popular with Nazi nostalgics that it's practically a joke in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.52.18 (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC) http://www.hri.org/news/greek/apeen/1999/99-11-21.apeen.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Greece#United_States_of_America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.52.18 (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Death Toll of Greek civilians 1967 -1974?

There is not even a rough figure of deaths.. Reaper7 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Still very POV

I know it is hard to be neutral about very bad people doing very, very bad things, but in no way can this unremittingly negative article be considered

. Is there anyway to lessen the viewpoint expressed here whilst still telling the truth? 75.252.121.110 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Finishing the article

How did the junta end? the article never says..

Great point. I was pondering the same question recently. It will be fixed. Meanwhile please try Metapolitefsi. Take care. Dr.K. 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was asked recently about my experience in Athens in December 1974. We were in a hotel just off Syntagma Square and when we awoke, the whole city was dead quiet. We walked out to the square and there were tanks and machine guns everywhere. We were advised at gunpoint by soldiers to return to our hotel. We did so!

We then travelled to Crete where we heard (unconfirmed) that people(students) were run over in the streets as part of this whole thing. I had not idea it was around the time that Greece returned to democracy.

Would love to know what actually happened!

My recollection, as a 22-year-old in Britain, was that the colonels sent most of their forces to the border with Turkey, following tension over Cyprus; and that this allowed pro-democracy army leaders to take over Athens, resulting in the junta's collapse. But there's no mention of that in the article. Mark314159 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's something relevant, from www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/download/156/62:
[The Greek Third Army] Regarded as the most powerful army in Greece. Its seat is Thessalonilci in Greek Macedonia. General Davos, the Commander of the 3rd Army, who never sympathized with the junta, demanded that the Athens Regime should immediately deliver Power to Karamanlis; if they failed to do it he would overthrow them by force.
Mark314159 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

want to add a country-infobox at the junta article.

i want to add a country-infobox at the junta article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christos200 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source

I'm writing here because, to my knowledge, self-published websites such as "Third World Traveler" are not acceptable sources per WP:RS. Because TWT is apparently reprinting text from a book, the book should be cited instead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

US Advance Knowledge

  • "It is, however, likely that the U.S. military was informed of the coup a few days in advance by Greek liaison officers."

The source cited, a book review in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies says no such thing. Here's what it says about American knowledge of the coup:

"In this crisis, U. S. officials shuttled between the contending forces relaying messages, counseling moderation on both sides, suggesting compromise scenarios, and considering and rejecting a CIA plan for a secret intervention to weaken Andreas and the left wing of the Center Union party (279-282). They debated what to do in the event of a royal coup, while urging the king to avoid "extra-constitutional" actions. Ultimately, the Americans concluded that a Center Union victory would not undermine the Greek constitution or deliver the country over to the communists (and Andreas). On 20 April, Deputy Assistant Secretary Stewart Rockwell cabled instructions to the embassy to press the wavering king to accept the popular will and keep the army in its barracks (310-311). On 21 April, the Americans awoke to discover that they had misread the threat to democracy in Greece. They had plenty of company. The king and his senior officers had coddled the coup-plotters for years. The colonels were able to carry out their own plans without the knowledge of their superiors. The Americans were well informed of the coup-makers' activities through early 1967, but like Greek general officers they assumed that the colonels were loyal to senior authority and would act only on orders from the palace (256-257)."

Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA says:

"Yet the colonels had taken the CIA by surprise: "The only time I saw Helms really angry was when the Greek colonels' coup took place in 1967," said the veteran analyst and current-intelligence chief Dick Lehman. "The Greek generals had been planning a coup against the elected government, a plan we knew all about and was not yet ripe. But a group of colonels had trumped their ace and acted without warning..." Lehman... "tried to cool Helms off by pointing out that this was a different coup, which we had no line on. This was a new thought" (Page 383)

Not only was there no advance knowledge, the US was actually caught by surprise. Therefore, I removed the claim above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox country

It first showed its ugly head in 2010 and got reverted by Damac: [3]. It was re-added on 6 February 2013 again by Trajan: [4]. I removed it on 9 March 2013: [5]. Then Trajan added it again today 16 April 2013 and I reverted it again: [6]. I can't believe that I have to discuss why this infobox-country is inappropriate for the junta, which is definitely a junta and not a counrty but here we are. In addition the infobox country which Trajan added was only for the period from 1973-1974 which is also completely incorrect and misleading because this article is about the seven years and not the one year from 73 to 74. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2013

Please change the redirect to:
#REDIRECT [[Greek military junta of 1967–74]] {{R from modification}}
to fix a double redirect caused by target page move. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ioannides/Ioannidis

The brigadier Dimitrios Ioannidis is named both Ioannides as Ioannidis in the text. I assume that this is incorrect 87.209.47.188 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox, again

I think it would be good if a Former Country Infobox were added to this article, as in other periods of modern Greek history. What were the symbols (flag, coat of arms), exact heads of state, etc, of the country during those 7 years? Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

lots of problematic sources

Has it it occurred to anyone to look at the sources? At least three of the sources in this article are also 911 conspiracy theorists. Daniele Ganser is one. His work on this subject is famously bereft of footnotes in the claims cited here, eg on Maury. Seven of the direct cites are on controversial and unsubstantiated claims by him, and some of the other cites, eg papachelas, are actually citing him. Ganser actually uses this HOAX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Field_Manual_30-31B as a legitimate source in his work on the subject of Greece.

This is really unfortunate. This episode involved high level opposition in the US government. All the sober sources say this and document it.The question of what the US did after the coup -- which is in need of criticism -- is obscured by the false claims contained in this article, by obvious and documented conspiracy theorists.73.212.229.38 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Devolution" or "Dissolution"?

The last sentence in the first paragraph of the Civil rights section says: "The rapid devolution of Greek democracy had begun."
Since "devolution" means "the transfer of power by central government to local or regional governments", it seems to me that the word is inappropriate within the context of the events being described.
I wonder if the editor who wrote this sentence might have meant: "The rapid dissolution of Greek democracy had begun", but made a good-faith error in writing the word devolution instead?
I would apply the change myself, but would prefer to put this up for evaluation by other editors more closely interested in the present article. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Descent to a lower or worse state: "the devolution of the gentlemanly ideal into a glorification of drunkenness". From the same source: 2.1 Biology Evolutionary degeneration. The term was used to indicate that the Greek democracy was degenerating to a lower evolutionary state. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough; thank you for your prompt reply.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you also Patrick. All the best. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Relation between this article and 1967 Greek coup d'état

moving this thread from WP:VP/PR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologize in advance, because I'm sure I'm posting this at the wrong place.

The article 1967 Greek coup d'état contains not one single reference, including to this statement:

  • As it turned out, the constitutional crisis did not originate either from the political parties, or from the Palace, but from middle-rank army putschists.

Further, nearly all of the article's text is identical, word for word, to the much longer text in Greek military junta of 1967–74, which is properly referenced. It seems to me there's no purpose at all to the 1967 Greek coup d'état article, and it ought to be removed. I'm not familiar with this history, but came to Wikipedia looking for information on the subject after seeing the Costa-Gavras movie Z (1969 film). Milkunderwood (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This should just be discussed at the articles' talkpages. However, I quite agree there's a problem with the present state of the articles, and it makes no sense to have them separated like this at the moment. I have redirected the coup d'état article to the junta one, for now. I'll copy this thread to Talk:Greek military junta of 1967–74 for further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Further comment: of course it would be an obvious solution to have the coup d'état article as a proper sub-article of this one, but it makes no sense to have that if its contents are just a word-for-word copy of a part of the larger article, and especially if it has all its references stripped. That's why I have redirected the pages, for now. No objections, obviously, against re-creating a coup d'état article if properly structured and factored out from here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree. Thank you Future. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek military junta of 1967–74. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Greek military junta of 1967–74. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Junta Truth: Silk, Oil, Straits, Magog

https://sites.google.com/site/juntatruth/

https://sites.google.com/site/markosparakyrkas/trunta.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.111.34.7 (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_junta/Archive_1&oldid=951817145"